So, come 2016 or sometime in the near future, other NATO countries (I think), will be adopting our CARB standards, which in theory should get us a lot of small diesel cars and trucks in the USA, since they will have to meet our standards now. I know crash testing is a whole separate can of worms, and I have doubts that Toyota USA would forsake the Tacoma, which is tailored to the mid size truck needs of this country, for a smaller, slower (with the diesel), and less comfortable Hilux, which would never see the kind of use it was made for, simply because we use 1/2 tons for that. It would probably be really expensive too, since a new taco approaches and surpasses $30k pretty easily. Add a few grand for the diesel, the import costs of the finished vehicle, and you have a nicely equipped F150. Anyone else's thoughts? Maybe a diesel option for the Tacoma?

While it is true that EPA standards generally follow California standards, an organization like NATO would be looking to the EPA rather than CARB.

NATO? NATO is comprised of the "western" European countries allied against the Eastern Bloc. NATO still exists, but it is simply a war treaty coalition. It has no regulatory power over emissions standards or other civilian issues.

It would be the UN, not NATO, that would be pushing for this.

EU/CE standards are already more strict than US standards.
We're not going to see the "third world" adopt standards that will crush their already trembling economies.

Small Diesels are already more than clean enough to surpass current EPA standards. It a matter of market demand.
WE, as enthusiasts, want Diesels, but to the enviro-whack contingent, "Diesel" is and always will be a four letter word. They want hydrogen, hybrid, ethanol, and other technologies that are less efficient and more costly.

WE, as enthusiasts, want Diesels, but to the enviro-whack contingent, "Diesel" is and always will be a four letter word. They want hydrogen, hybrid, ethanol, and other technologies that are less efficient and more costly.

It's not about saving the planet... it's about controlling our lives.

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with developing technologies to move us beyond our dependence on oil

There is nothing wrong with developing technologies to move us beyond our dependence on oil

Click to expand...

I agree, but....

Battery and hydrogen are ecological dead-ends for the most part.

Neither are energy sources. Both are energy storage/transport media.
Both require more power to produce/charge than they return when used.

Environmental impact of batteries, both on the production and disposal side, are far worse than the impact of fossil fuels.
Now add the hazards presented to the public and EMS workers at an accident scene.

The advantage of battery and hydrogen technologies is that they do not force us to use a "portable" energy source for their production. Solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear power can be used to "charge" such systems, but our present power production infrastructure on a global basis is primarily based on fossil fuels... gas, oil, and coal.

Diesel and bio-Diesel are far better solutions for the short term.

Long term? The economy will drive it.
You can not force anything on the market until it is economically viable.
When alternative power sources are less expensive than current sources, the market will shift, companies will invest in their development, and they will become more prevalent and less expensive.
Governments attempt to push this through taxation, but all that does is crush the local economy, and unless and until it is done on an equitable global scale, alternatives will not be implemented on a global scale.

Gasoline, Diesel, and coal rule the world for one reason and one reason only... they are cheap and plentiful.
When they are no longer cheap and plentiful, they will be replaced.

Global demand from developing countries is lessening the "cheap" aspect, but they are still cheap relative to alternatives.

Government subsidies of alternatives such as ethanol are not sustainable over the long term. Just as taxing smokers to pay for medical care is a downward spiral of lost revenue (increase taxes to raise money, fewer people smoke, revenue dries up), likewise, taxes on fossil fuels to support alternatives ultimately results in the reduction in demand for fossil fuels, which results in a loss of revenue, which results in less money to support the subsidies... end result is fuel shortages.